![](\"https:\/\/media.giphy.com\/media\/iOGnCqiNb5cuk2dM54\/giphy.gif\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In 1994 Ronald Heifetz set the leadership field afire with his theory of \u201cAdaptive Leadership\u201d in his book Leadership Without Easy Answers. <\/em>\u00a0Since then, adaptive change vs technical change has been the focus of many a leadership conference.\u00a0 Wrapping one\u2019s brain around the applicable differences between adaptive and technical can be an exhausting task.\u00a0 In essence, technical change occurs around a technical problem that can be managed by someone with the skill or knowledge of a solid solution.\u00a0 An adaptive change occurs around an adaptive challenge that \u201crequire new learning and can only be tackled by changing people\u2019s assumptions, beliefs, habits, and allegiances.\u201d[1]<\/a>The beauty of\u00a0 The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World<\/em> by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow & Marty Linksy is that they move past the theory of adaptive leadership to offer tangible and practical ways to apply adaptive leadership while discerning the adaptive capacity of the system; the reader finds a plethora of diagrams and charts, tools and tactics, as well as interesting reflections and exercises to utilize for diagnosis and discernment.<\/p>\n Interestingly, for me, one of the most thought provoking notions in The Practice of Adaptive Leadership was the provocative notion that leaders often fail in effecting adaptive change due to the false notion that something is broken.\u00a0 The authors call this the \u201cillusion of the broken system\u201d.[2]<\/a> Heifetz says, \u201cThe reality is that any social system (including an organization or a country or a family) is the way it is because the people in that system (at least those individuals and factions with the most leverage) want it that way.\u201d[3]<\/a> The authors argue that this is not necessarily a dysfunctional system.<\/p>\n I find an interesting tension in this concept, especially in light of the authors premise that adaptive change being closely related to the biological evolutionary process.\u00a0 If a human system is fighting the adaptive change because of its desire to function the way they know and the comfort therein, isn\u2019t that a dysfunction? Because ultimately in the evolutionary process refusal to face the adaptions leads to death.<\/p>\n Heifetz, et al. go one to offer another stimulating notion,<\/p>\n The importance of this idea lies in the impact it has on the techniques for trying to address the problem. Embarrassing or not, the organization prefers the current situation to trying something new where the consequences are unpredictable and likely to involve losses for key parties. Taking that into account will lead to different strategic options for closing the gap. When you realize that what you see as dysfunctional works for others in the system, you begin focusing on how to mobilize and sustain people through the period of risk that often comes with adaptive change, rather trying to convince them of the rightness of your cause.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Heifetz and Friedman have confluence around the challenges pioneers have when attempting to bring the people together around new visions, dreams, or future.\u00a0 It seems Friedman would argue that a self-differentiated leader must not have a failure of nerve to take action, while Heifetz entreats the leader to be intentional and calculated in curating the space for the system to adapt. \u00a0Either way Friedman and Heifetz agree that adaptive leadership is dangerous.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Kahneman\u2019s system 2, slow thinking works well in Heifetz et al practices for considering a system\u2019s adaptive capacity.\u00a0 A leader endeavoring to understand the biases at play that Kahneman unpacks in Thinking Fast and Slow<\/em> could prove beneficial in practicing adaptive leadership. Being cognizant of these biases can help the leader do what Heifetz et al challenge the leader to do, \u201cbuild on the past\u201d.[6]<\/a><\/p>\n In the end I feel it is important to ask, is the church broken or is the dysfunction only an illusion?\u00a0 I am convinced it is both\/and.\u00a0 Anxiety has created quick fixes that are driven by false thinking we are dealing with technical changes. The quick fixes have, if not entirely, partially broken the healthy functioning of worshipping communities in North America. As I face the challenge of pioneering a path with a church that must recognize it needs to transform or accept death, I find that the integration of the wisdom from Friedman, Kahneman and Heifetz is a necessity. \u00a0Each author provides dance steps for the leadership dance routine as I not only look from the balcony but dance the Electric Slide on the dance floor with the church.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> https:\/\/aduroconsulting.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/Book-Summary_The-Practice-of-Adaptive-Leadership-by-Heifetz-Grashow-Linsky.pdf<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> Ronald A. Heifetz, Marty Linsky, and Alexander Grashow, The Practice of Adaptive Leadership: Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World<\/em>, 1st edition (Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Press, 2009). Location 429. Kindle<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Ibid. Location 438. Kindle<\/p>\n